368 Royal Colonial Institute. 



short tenancies, and are immediately beliind the Turkish baths. Nos. 18 and 19, v/hich 

 are immediately behind No. 21, Nortiiumberland Avenue, have \)Q%n amalgamated into 

 one building, now known as No. 19. These, -with No. 20, which is immediately behind 

 part of our own building and, therefore, abuts on our premises, are let on lease, but an 

 arrangement has been made whereby possession could be had on giving six months' 

 notice. Nos. 19 and 20 are larger houses than Nos. 16 and 17 and substantially built^ 

 and could easily be adapted for offices for our staS at a comparatively moderate cost, 

 communicating doors being raade from our present building ir^to No. 20. We could 

 in this way make use of both houses or only one as necessity required. The fliet in,Gome 

 to be derived from the v/hole of the premises, after deducting all outgoings, is £651 p.e;r 

 annum. 



Now as to the price. When these negotiations \yere started in 1913 the So,uth 

 Eastern and Chatham Railway Company, who are the owners of the freehold, asked 

 £16,275. The Council then consulted .the eminent purveyors, Messrs. Oeso. Hea,d & Co., 

 and throughout the negotiatious ,the Co,uncil have been guided by fcheir a-dvice. The 

 Council made an offer of £1 5,000, which was refused. It was then found that the ,tena-nt,s 

 of Nos. 19 and 20 were also iti the field ^s purchasers afl.d \vere biddiiig against us. 

 Eventually we went to £17,000, but still did not get the property which went .to the 

 other bidders. This was shortly before tehe war. T^e .other bidders, however, did not 

 proceed with their purchase, and a few ;weeks ^-gf) we we^e agaiu approached by the 

 railway company, who offered us the freehold at our original figiu'e of £15,000, or a 

 building lease at a ground re^ifc of £650 a yeaj'. The Council obtained a, short option 

 and again went into the mg^tter very carefully, consulting the surveyors again, par- 

 ticularly having regard to the altered circumstances due to jthe war. Shortly, what we 

 were ad\'ised by the surveyors was that, if we wished either now or hereafter to extend 

 our pireacaises, this was an opportunity that shou'ld not be missed, and that, if we did let 

 it slip and allow the premises to pass into other hands, we should find, if 'hereafter we 

 wished to buy the premises, that it would be a much more difficult and costly under- 

 taking, for there would be other interests to buy out. We endeavoured to get a further 

 reduction from the railway company, but they were not prepared to m^jke any further 

 abatement in the price, and were in a position to be quite firm, as we w^re informed they 

 had received offers from two other parties, who were A\'illin_g to take the premises on 

 building lease, one party having offered £675 per aiyium by way of ground .rent, which 

 was more than the ground rent the railway company had asked from us in ^\& eve^t of 

 our taking the property on lease. The Council, therefore, decided to purchase the 

 property, subject to the approval of the Fellows being obtained ito-day ^to i»he r,aising 

 of the money by way of mortgage. 



The property is freehold, but there is one point I think I should mention. TJie 

 propei-ty, together wdth all the other houses in Craven Street Vfhich ar'C owned |by the 

 railway company — practically the entire street — is subject to a repttcharge of £11,000 

 per annum in perpetuity, which was created when the railway compp,ny purchased the 

 property from the Craven Estate, The rentcharge is secured upon a large amoiint of 

 property, of which the premises we are buying only forms a very smaU part, anc^ it is 

 also a first charge upon the rates and tolls of the railway. The railway compaa;iy are 

 prepared to covenant to pay the rentcharge and to give the Institute a full and complete 

 indemnity against it. It will, however, technically remaiu a charge o^ji the jproperty, 

 but Mr, Geo, Head has advised us that, so far as a,ctual value is concerjied, ,he is -of 

 opinion that the existence of the rentcharge ma^es little or no difference. There is, 

 however, the point that, should we at any time wish to dispose of the property, the 



